PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the potential and utility of ultra-high-resolution hypoxia imaging in various murine tumour models using the established hypoxia PET tracer [(18)F]fluoromisonidazole ([(18)F]FMISO). METHODS: [(18)F]FMISO PET imaging was performed with the dedicated small-animal PET scanner NanoPET (Oxford Positron Systems) and ten different human tumour xenografts in nude mice as well as B16 melanoma tumours in syngeneic Balb/c mice. For comparison, [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([(18)F]FDG) PET scans were also performed in the mice bearing human tumour xenografts. RESULTS: In 10 out of 11 experimental tumour models, [(18)F]FMISO PET imaging allowed clear-cut visualisation of the tumours. Inter- and intratumoural heterogeneity of tracer uptake was evident. In addition to average TMRR (tumour-to-muscle retention ratio including all voxels in a volume of interest (VOI)), the parameters TMRR(75%) and TMRR(5) (tumour-to-muscle retention ratio including voxels of 75% or more of the maximum radioactivity in a VOI and the five hottest pixels, respectively) also served as measures for quantifying the heterogeneous [(18)F]FMISO uptake in the tumours. The variability observed in [(18)F]FMISO uptake was related neither to tumour size nor to the injected mass of the radiotracer. The pattern of normoxic and hypoxic regions within the human tumour xenografts, however, correlated with glucose metabolism as revealed by comparison of [(18)F]FDG and [(18)F]FMISO images. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility and utility of [(18)F]FMISO for imaging murine tumour models using NanoPET.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the potential and utility of ultra-high-resolution hypoxia imaging in various murinetumour models using the established hypoxia PET tracer [(18)F]fluoromisonidazole ([(18)F]FMISO). METHODS: [(18)F]FMISO PET imaging was performed with the dedicated small-animal PET scanner NanoPET (Oxford Positron Systems) and ten different humantumour xenografts in nude mice as well as B16 melanoma tumours in syngeneic Balb/c mice. For comparison, [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose ([(18)F]FDG) PET scans were also performed in the mice bearing humantumour xenografts. RESULTS: In 10 out of 11 experimental tumour models, [(18)F]FMISO PET imaging allowed clear-cut visualisation of the tumours. Inter- and intratumoural heterogeneity of tracer uptake was evident. In addition to average TMRR (tumour-to-muscle retention ratio including all voxels in a volume of interest (VOI)), the parameters TMRR(75%) and TMRR(5) (tumour-to-muscle retention ratio including voxels of 75% or more of the maximum radioactivity in a VOI and the five hottest pixels, respectively) also served as measures for quantifying the heterogeneous [(18)F]FMISO uptake in the tumours. The variability observed in [(18)F]FMISO uptake was related neither to tumour size nor to the injected mass of the radiotracer. The pattern of normoxic and hypoxic regions within the humantumour xenografts, however, correlated with glucose metabolism as revealed by comparison of [(18)F]FDG and [(18)F]FMISO images. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility and utility of [(18)F]FMISO for imaging murinetumour models using NanoPET.
Authors: W J Koh; J S Rasey; M L Evans; J R Grierson; T K Lewellen; M M Graham; K A Krohn; T W Griffin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1992 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: D Rischin; L Peters; R Hicks; P Hughes; R Fisher; R Hart; M Sexton; I D'Costa; R von Roemeling Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M F Adam; E C Gabalski; D A Bloch; J W Oehlert; J M Brown; A A Elsaid; H A Pinto; D J Terris Journal: Head Neck Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Bernd Gagel; Patrick Reinartz; Ercole Dimartino; Michael Zimny; Michael Pinkawa; Payam Maneschi; Sven Stanzel; Kurt Hamacher; Heinz H Coenen; Michael Westhofen; Ulrich Büll; Michael J Eble Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: D M Brizel; S P Scully; J M Harrelson; L J Layfield; J M Bean; L R Prosnitz; M W Dewhirst Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1996-03-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: M Höckel; C Knoop; K Schlenger; B Vorndran; E Baussmann; M Mitze; P G Knapstein; P Vaupel Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Beatrice M Seddon; Ross J Maxwell; Davina J Honess; Rachel Grimshaw; Florence Raynaud; Gillian M Tozer; Paul Workman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Craig K Abbey; Alexander D Borowsky; Jeffery P Gregg; Robert D Cardiff; Simon R Cherry Journal: J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.673
Authors: Sven De Bruycker; Christel Vangestel; Tim Van den Wyngaert; Leonie Wyffels; An Wouters; Patrick Pauwels; Steven Staelens; Sigrid Stroobants Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Esther G C Troost; Peter Laverman; Mariëlle E P Philippens; Jasper Lok; Albert J van der Kogel; Wim J G Oyen; Otto C Boerman; Johannes H A M Kaanders; Johan Bussink Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Chulhan Kim; In Hye Kim; Seo-Il Kim; Young Sang Kim; Se Hun Kang; Seung Hwan Moon; Tae-Sung Kim; Seok-Ki Kim Journal: Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-05-27
Authors: Makiko Suehiro; Paul Burgman; Sean Carlin; Sean Burke; Guangbin Yang; Ouathek Ouerfelli; Christoph Oehler-Janne; Joseph O'Donoghue; Clifton Ling; John Humm Journal: Nucl Med Biol Date: 2009-05-07 Impact factor: 2.408